Real Time Rendering of Final Fantasy on a GF4?

[SteveC]

I find this hard to believe:

http://www.theinquirer.net/19060214.htm

[Gurm]

Me too. This has popped up several times, and each time the rendering looks like shit.

Note that they refer to some mysitcal "demo" here, but provide no link for those of us with kickass systems to try out.

Pffft.

- Gurm

[Jammrock]

*sniff*

*sniff*

Something smells like fish in this article.

Jammrock

[Drizzt]

Uhmmm...
I think that article says the truth and the false at the same time...

I'll explain this better:
1) It is a demo and not the original work.
So, even if it should look the same, we can be sure it's full of optimization. Reflection maps instead of real reflections, i.e.

2) Somehow, the article never says that it renders the entire film or that it renders entire scenes. Rather, I seem to understend that it render a character or an ambient. And that is a bit different from rendering real phisycs and so on...

3) It's not the GF4 that is rendering...better, it's not only the GF4!
As it states in the article, it has a powerful processor behind that: has not to calculate phisycs, has not to calculate IA, has not to calculate collisions, has not to calculate anything than the graphic of the demo itself!!



So, we can think that demo is real and real time rendering...but that not mean that it's rendering the real film or that it can do something similar for a game!

[Jammrock]

In other words, a marketing ploy by nVidia.

Jammrock

[Gurm]

And it's been done before. Since the first time they made that claim (back with GF1's, IIRC) they have had demos out and about. I played with one of them. It sucked. Hardcore. *shrug*

I've seen some of the graphics from a GF3 (not too far from a GF4) rendering FF. It looks NOTHING like the final movie. NOTHING.

- Gurm

[Nuno]

Geforce:


Real thing:




Close, but no cigar...

[Wombat]

I wouldn't even give them "close." The GF picture looks like it was rendered on my home machine. Makes sense, since it pretty much was. The texturing, lighting, and polygon count are all way off.
Just look at her arm resting on (through?) that bar.

[SteveC]

I wouldn't even call them "near". The GF4's is obviously computer generated - looks like a computer game straight off

The real one could be 'real' - you have to look quite closely to see it's not real, and even then it's not obvious

Look at her hair in the first one for god's sake!

[Gurm]

And remember - every one of her hairs is animated. They made a big deal about that over at Square... dynamic hair strand rendering.

Now, do that not only for her face, but for her whole body - with 10 other people onscreen, and render it at some obscene... oh, wait. You CAN'T.

- Gurm

[az]

It's really good for real-time computer graphics, and I'd really like to play a game with that level of graphical realism (and own a machine that can render it) - but saying this is movie-like is just lying.

AZ

[Indiana]

I'm not too impressed by the GF4 rendering. IMO even ATIs Rachel looks more "alive".

[KvHagedorn]

Well, I can tell you this much.. the first one has movable arms and you can dress it and play with it and it's fun for any girl 4-14...

But the second one's givin me a semi..

[GT98]

Whoa that second photo is down right scary looking...the freckles are nice convising touch!

[VJ]

Perhaps slightly off topic, but what movies could be rendered in real time ?

No doubt Luxo Jr. (see http://www.pixar.com/shorts/index.html ) can be rendered in real time by most current systems, as would some other older movies, but where would it stop ? Toy story ?


Jörg